update-task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that tasks are identified via case-insensitive partial match and that the tool modifies the file (marks as done/pending). However, it does not detail error handling, required permissions, or side effects beyond the stated modification.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each with a clear role: stating the purpose, giving usage context, and explaining identification. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how parameters identify tasks. It could mention what happens on no match or multiple matches, but for a simple utility this is generally sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds context: 'match' is partial and case-insensitive, 'done' corresponds to checkbox syntax. This adds some value, but not significant depth beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Mark' and the resource 'task' in 'tasks.md', with specific outcomes 'done or pending'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-task-summary (reading) and hook tools (hooks management).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides when to use the tool: 'during implementation to track progress'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context signal shows siblings like get-task-summary for reading, which implies this tool is for writing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.